Following is a question by the Hon Chan Kin-por and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Ms Bernadette Linn, in the Legislative Council today (July 2):
      
Question:
      
     It is mentioned in the website of the Joint Office for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints (JO) that "under normal circumstances, seepage caused by the penetration of rainwater through roofs, flat roofs, balconies, external walls or windows of a building or from leaking water pipes will not have public health implications and is not nuisance actionable by the Regional Joint Office under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132)". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
      
(1) of the number of requests for assistance relating to water seepage received by JO in each year since 2022 and, among them, the number of those in which the seepage was caused by the penetration of rainwater through roofs, flat roofs, balconies, external walls or windows of a building or from leaking water pipes, and thus could not be handled by JO;
      
(2) as there are views that JO currently carries out water seepage investigations by issuing nuisance notices or orders under Cap. 132, the scope of which is confined to the wilful damage to drains, cesspools, wells or nuisance to any sanitary convenience, but the existing mechanism fails to effectively address the predicament faced by members of the public who have long been suffering from water seepage caused by defective waterproofing layers on rooftops, whether the authorities will consider amending Cap. 132 to gradually include important water seepage problems (e.g. rooftop leakage) in the definition of "nuisance", so as to expand the enforcement responsibilities of JO, such that the affected members of the public will be provided with assistance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
      
(3) given that under section 34H of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) concerning the "duty to maintain property", "where a person who owns any part of a building, has the right to the exclusive possession of any part of a building or has the exclusive right to the use, occupation or enjoyment of that part, as the case may be, but the deed of mutual covenant in respect of the building does not impose an obligation on that person to maintain the part in good repair and condition, that person shall maintain that part in good repair and condition", whether the authorities will consider amending the relevant provisions to stipulate that all the owners or owners' corporations owe an obligation to undertake maintenance works to keep the property in "good repair and condition", and at the same time expanding the powers of JO to issue warnings to and impose penalties on defaulters; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
      
Reply:
      
President,
      
     Proper management and maintenance of private property is the responsibility of property owners. If water seepage occurs in private buildings, the owners concerned may first co-operate among themselves to engage professionals or consultancy firms for carrying out water seepage investigation to identify the source of seepage and conducting necessary repair works to fulfill owners’ responsibility of proper management, maintenance and repair of buildings. Consultancy firms or professionals are also available in the market to provide services for investigating and handling water seepage problems. A list of consultancy firms and experts providing professional advice and services on water seepage problems has been uploaded onto the websites of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and the Buildings Department (BD) for public reference. When the water seepage condition concerned has caused health nuisance, risk to structural safety of the building or water waste, the Government will take enforcement action in accordance with the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) (PHMSO), the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) (BO) and the Waterworks Ordinance (Cap. 102) respectively.
      
     If owners are unable to resolve water seepage problems in consultation with their neighbours, they can seek assistance from the Joint Office (JO) jointly set up by the FEHD and the BD. Through inter-departmental co-ordination, the JO seeks to identify the source of water seepage using one-stop and systematic testing methods and requires the owners concerned to carry out repair works by exercising the powers conferred by the law, leveraging the expertise of relevant departments and with co-operation of the owners or occupants concerned.
                  
     Having consulted the Environment and Ecology Bureau (EEB), the FEHD and the Home Affairs Department, the replies to the various parts of the question are as follows:

(1) If the water seepage constitutes a health nuisance, the JO will follow up on the case in accordance with the PHMSO and take criminal prosecution action as appropriate. If rainwater seepage through rooftops, podiums, balconies, external walls or windows of buildings poses building safety risks (e.g. concrete spalling from ceilings, corrosion of reinforcement), or if the seepage is related to defective drainage pipes such as rainwater pipes or foul water pipes of the buildings, the JO will refer the case to the BD for action in accordance with the BO. If water supply pipes are found to be defective and resulting in wastage of water supply, the JO will refer the case to the Water Supplies Department (WSD) for action under the Waterworks Ordinance.

     In 2022, 2023 and 2024, the number of complaints about water seepage in buildings received by the JO was 39 555, 45 033 and 47 299 respectively, of which 1 243, 1 436 and 2 200 were referred to the BD for cases relating to building safety risk caused by the seepage and involving defective drainage pipes respectively; and 702, 861 and 1 236 were referred to the WSD for cases relating to or suspected to be relating to water supply pipe leakage respectively. The JO does not maintain a breakdown of water seepage cases caused by rainwater but did not pose building safety risk.

(2) If the JO finds that the source of water seepage is a nuisance under the PHMSO, the JO will issue a Nuisance Notice to the owner of the premise with water seepage, irrespective of whether wilful damage to drains, bathroom floors, sanitary fitments, etc is involved.
      
     For rooftop water seepage, the JO will refer the case to the BD under the aforementioned mechanism. Based on the investigation results, the BD will issue an advisory letter to the owner concerned to carry out water seepage investigations and follow-up actions as soon as possible. If the seepage is found to constitute building structural safety risk, the BD may issue a building repair order, an investigation order or a drainage repair order in accordance with the BO as appropriate. With regard to defective buildings or drains, a person is liable to an offence for failing to comply with a statutory order served under the law to carry out remedial works.
      
     Since the aforesaid mechanism for handling rooftop water seepage has been serving its purpose, the EEB considers that currently it is not necessary to amend the PHMSO.

(3) Under the existing Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) (BMO), if owners have formed an owners’ corporation (OC) in accordance with the BMO, the OC will act legally on behalf of all owners in managing and maintaining the common parts of the building and shall take all reasonably necessary measures to discharge its responsibilities relating to the control, management and administration of the building as set out in the deed of mutual covenant; if a building does not have an OC, the responsibility for the management of the common parts of the building would be shared by all owners. OCs or owners may consider appointing a property management company with a licence issued by the Property Management Services Authority under the Property Management Services Ordinance (Cap. 626) to assist in the work relating to building management.
      
     The Public Health and Municipal Services (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 (the Amendment Ordinance) was passed by the Legislative Council and will come into operation on August 17, 2025. To expedite the handling of public health nuisances such as water seepage in buildings, the Amendment Ordinance will extend the hours during which public officers are allowed to enter premises from the existing 7am to 7pm to 7am to 10pm, and non-compliance with the Notice of Intended Entry will be an offence punishable by a fine up to level 2 (i.e. $5,000). To enhance the deterrent effect, the penalty for non-compliance with Nuisance Notices and Orders will be increased from a fine at Level 3 to Level 4 (i.e. $10,000 to $25,000) and from a fine at Level 4 to a fine at Level 5 (i.e. $25,000 to $50,000).

Ends/Wednesday, July 2, 2025
Issued at HKT 16:01

NNNN